About Me

Known principally for his weekly political columns and his commentaries on radio and television, Chris Trotter has spent most of his adult life either engaging in or writing about politics. He was the founding editor of The New Zealand Political Review (1992-2005) and in 2007 authored No Left Turn, a political history of New Zealand. Living in Auckland with his wife and daughter, Chris describes himself as an “Old New Zealander” – i.e. someone who remembers what the country was like before Rogernomics. He has created this blog as an archive for his published work and an outlet for his more elegiac musings. It takes its name from Bowalley Road, which runs past the North Otago farm where he spent the first nine years of his life. Enjoy.

Bowalley Road Rules

The blogosphere tends to be a very noisy, and all-too-often a very abusive, place. I intend Bowalley Road to be a much quieter, and certainly a more respectful, place.So, if you wish your comments to survive the moderation process, you will have to follow the Bowalley Road Rules.These are based on two very simple principles:Courtesy and Respect.Comments which are defamatory, vituperative, snide or hurtful will be removed, and the commentators responsible permanently banned.Anonymous comments will not be published. Real names are preferred. If this is not possible, however, commentators are asked to use a consistent pseudonym.Comments which are thoughtful, witty, creative and stimulating will be most welcome, becoming a permanent part of the Bowalley Road discourse.However, I do add this warning. If the blog seems in danger of being over-run by the usual far-Right suspects, I reserve the right to simply disable the Comments function, and will keep it that way until the perpetrators find somewhere more appropriate to vent their collective spleen.

Followers

Tuesday, 18 November 2008

Protect Our Public Services

THANK God for journalists like Gordon Campbell! Without his latest post, John Key's extraordinary concession to Act over the Taxpayers Bill of Rights would have completely passed me by.

I had, of course, given the Confidence & Supply Agreement between National and Act a quick skim-read and had noted the reference to the TBOR. What I failed to notice, however, was the fact that National has agreed not only to ensure the Bill is referred to the Finance & Expenditure Select Committee, but that it will be treated as a Government measure.

This is what the document states:

Support, within six months, the referral of ACT’s Taxpayer Rights Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee of Parliament as a government measure with the aim of passing into law a cap on the growth of core Crown expenses.

So, there you have it - an unequivocal committment to underwrite an extremist neoliberal measure within six months of taking office. As Gordon says, time to batten down the hatches:

Once again, New Zealanders are going to be used as the lab rats in a nutcase libertarian experiement. To summarise, from the Bell Policy Center report, the problems with this tool are: services can't keep pace with growth in the economy. Temporary budget cuts become permanent. Multiple limits restrict flexibility and force false choices. Saving and planning are made very difficult. Yes, that sounds like a good idea to introduce in New Zealand.

In Old New Zealand, I know how the Left would have responded to such a revelation.

A meeting would have been called in Wellington to which representatitives of the Federation of Labour, the Labour Party, the various socialist and communist organisations to the left of Labour, NZUSA, the NZ Council of Churches, and other interested NGOs would have been invited.

Out of this meeting a new organisation, with a catchy acronym would have been announced. Something to rival HART (Halt All Racist Tours) or CARP (Campaign Against Rising Prices). Protect Our Public Services - POPS - perhaps?

Before long there would have been a POPS organisation in every major centre and a national co-ordinating committee would've announced the first of a series of public demonstrations. In the build- up to the first big march there would have been a concerted campaign of letter-writing, pamphleteering, and neighbourhood meetings.

In Old New Zealand The Listener would have run a major investigative feature on TBOR in Colorado. Television NZ would have produced a one hour documentary on the controversy to be screened in prime time. And the irrepressible Wolfgang Rosenberg would have published another of his little booklets: What every citizen should know about: The Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

But, of course, in Old New Zealand, knowing all these things would happen, no government of the Right would ever have contemplated introducing a piece of legislation so hostile to the interests of its citizens.

What will happen in New New Zealand? I guess we'll find out in the next six months.

Yes, this is bad news, at least in the short term. In the long term people might see that National is really "Labour-minus" rather than Labour-plus.

But, Chris, that Old NZ is long gone. Not even you can bring it back, and there's not a lot of point wallowing in nostalgia.

What happens in the New NZ is that Gordon Campbell alerts the blogosphere to what's going down, bloggers like you and I fulminate on-line, journos pick it up and then editors bury the story because they want National's honeymoon to last two years minimum.

Seriously, I am sure that the CTU for one will be campaigning against this up and down the country.

Chris, why would anyone want to protect public services that fail to serve the public? I work as a provincial GP, and for months, until recently, it was taking nine months to get a non-urgent ultrasound scan for my patients at the local hospital vs a 1-2 week wait in the private sector. Given the choice, many people went privately despite having been coerced into paying taxes for a substandard service. Why on earth would you want to protect this?

Richard: If you are in reality a GP (seems odd- a busy GP hanging around on a leftwing blog posting rightwing opinions) and this story is true then the fact that it was a *non-urgent* scan says it all... socialised healthcare is never going to pay for everything, but it will give you life saving treatment if you need it without bankrupting you. Which is fine by me.

If the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" were law in the US, wouldn't the US$700 billion banking system bailout have been all but impossible? That amount of new expenditure simply would not be allowed for....and the banking system and economic system would be left to collapse.

Colorado, where this was implemented just a few years ago, has already dumped it. The state was falling apart.

Labour has increased govt spending by 22Bil a year. About 4Bil went on WFF, which leaves 18Bil on health, education, defense etc.

Is the state service better for it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the waiting list in hospitals has more than doubled, 40% of kids coming out of schools (by HC's admission) are not properly qualified, our defense force can't fly, fight or sale etc etc.

I struggle to see why watching our pennies in the state service is such a bad thing. Can't be any worse than currently.

Anonymous: So are you saying that non-urgent healthcare could be privatised? That would be a good start. As you suggest, under socialised health care, people with non-urgent health problems just fester on a waiting list. Like the person who waited several months to see an opthalmologist about an eye problem and lost his/her eye as a result. Yep, you socialists just ooze compassion.

Kia ora Mr Trotter, a personal note - just found your blog via the DimPost - choice. Was dismayed when Mr Spondre announced you'd 'hung up' yr policy.net keyboard after the election, was gonna miss your input during the next little while. All o.k now, onwards matey, and I hope the trolls don't get you down.

so over Christmas while the news media are asleep and holidaying in Fiji, National will ram through Daddy State legislation,

Hopefully there will be some on and offline activities planned in ways that will draw the MSM's critical attention to the cons, as well as the pros, of new legislation, as indicated above via the Trades Hall.

Bogusnews - Yes, but if you look at government spending as a percentage of GDP then you'll see it was acutally less under Labour then it was under National in the nineties. Labour was able to spend so much because the economy grew so much. This is what Gordon Campbell points out about TABOR:Crucially, the measure has a rachet down effect on public services. During boom times, central and local governments are prevented from using the higher revenues to expand or to improve public services, or to save for a rainy day. Moreover, because revenues will fall during a recession, the year-to-year measurement will mean that the new base for determining spending growth will become the low revenue point created by the recession. Hence, the TABOR approach renders permanent any cuts to public services that are imposed during bad years.

Do you think that state services would have been better if we hadn't increased funding during the boom times we've just experienced?

It is hysterical of Gordon Campbell to turn an agreement to support what Rodney comes up with to Select Committee as an assurance that "extremist neo-liberal" is what will happen.

Does Gordon really think that whatever Rodney comes up with will be put into law without examination? I think Rodney will come up with something much more to the Right than many are comfortable with. And he will do that deliberately so that when it is "centred" it is closer to what he really wants. Much the same game that women play when choosing diamond rings... There are plenty of people smart enough to observe what happens/happened in Colorado and attempt to avoid those mistakes.

Surely Gordon cannot argue with the inexorable rise of rates demands. That never go down even after big projects are completed. Wellington is a good example. Stupid Prendegast wants to build that stupid sports centre in a stupid place despite there being sports centres available at Queen's Wharf and Porirua's brand new Te Rauparaha centre. Just don't do it, and get on with the water, sewage, and rail upgrades.

I voted for the change so have got what I asked for. But be assured that I will now be testing what happens with this government against my somewhat liberal benchmark.

If Act get too uppity then Key will simply turn the other way and deal with the MP. That will cause Hide to come running back asking for a second chance.